Gaming today is very different from what we used to play in the SNES and Genesis times. It really has become on of the mayor participants in the economy, and the industry has grown so much it has been compared to Hollywood the last years. Mainstream, though, has its price, and it is no exception. Metallica suffered it. Why not gaming?

Bad jokes aside, I decided to do a little Top 6 on how i see the modern gaming world. But I have to make first a little confession: I have not played many modern games today. This is based on my few direct experiences, the many times I watched friends play and whatever I hear on news, critics and rants. You may think that I am no authority whatsoever to talk about this. As a matter of fact, I am not. But there is a reason I have not been attracted to retake videogames again. These six reasons are the ones that keep me from trying again.

Second, this is not a Top 6 in the sense that the first one is the most important. What it means is that these six reasons are the main reasons I don’t care about the X-Box, PS3, Wii and other consoles anymore, but there are many other things that keep me from enjoying the new games. Granted there are still some great games left I like to approach to, but these are more and more exceptions, which makes me a bit sad. Without further ado, let’s start this little list.

-.-.-.-.-

1 – New controllers

Today’s controllers are really a mystery to me. There are two types of controllers: standard type and motion sensors. Now, on the standard side, I have the feeling that the controllers are getting too many buttons for my comfort, and even bulkier. Let’s just start with the disaster of the Dreamcast controller, which every time I grabbed felt like holding a huge boulder. Another occasion this happened was when I tried to play Halo on the X-Box. What is the point of it? I know they have fixed it now in the X-Box 360, but it somehow still seems bulky to me. Want a perfect controller? Take the Playstation one. They may have a ton of buttons like the others, but they fit perfectly in my hand.

This one is more like a pet peeve for me, but I think there are already too many buttons on our controllers. I know we want to experience a game as if it was a real life thing, but if I have to find the button to shoot this and then the other button just to jump… and then some others more with combinations, I just can’t seem to handle a game anymore. This problem does not apply to all games, but we will get to this in one of the points later.

The motion thing is another big problem. I know this thing is a hot item now, but after trying out the Wii and the Kinect, I just can’t do anything else but return to the normal controllers anymore. I feel this “hand’s free” style is a nice gimmick and it is perfect for certain games, such as Mario Kart and all the sports games compilation we have been receiving, but even there the greatest flaw comes into light: they are terribly inexact. I remember a survival horror game in which you died just because the control did not respond 100% correctly. One thing is for sure: motion controlling is still not here to stay! Still, game companies abuse that just to force feed us novelty and to tell us that this is, indeed, the best that happened to gaming

2 – DLC

This one is maybe one of the worst moot points. Downloadable content was supposed to be a great opportunity to expand on games and eliminate possible mistakes in those huge games that are coming out. Instead we got all the contrary.

Unlockable content that is already on your disc, incomplete games, forcing to buy to live the “full experience”… all this was the result of a great idea that has gone wrong. Again, not everything is bad, but it seems like the companies are starting to abuse this system. Instead of expanding the games, they seem like a clever marketing ploy to get you to buy add-on after add-on, while not giving you the gaming experience as it should be since the beginning. It was easier in the days where your cartridge had all there was needed to play the game.

The problem here is not that this was something “evil” created by the corporation to exploit the gamer. It is just an idea that lost the way by becoming a money-making machine. It would be great to see the companies holding back on the economic logic and try to give the player more. I do agree to be charged on new content, but it has to be worth it since the beginning, a.k.a, the moment you first purchase the game. Do you hear that MVC?

3 – Lessened game variability

Maybe I am just paranoid. It is very well possible, since I am a retro gamer. But I feel like the games have lost total focus on what was at disposition on the marked. I do understand when you say Modern Warfare, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Halo and so on are the most popular games ever. Shooters and sports games are the easiest to jump into, followed by the typical jump and run platformer and so on. And it is not like all other game genres disappeared. But don’t you think there is too much of one style of game? Seriously, they are so popular, that Black Ops got voted as “best ending ever”. Above a gem like Chrono Trigger?

Maybe it has to do on how easily the shooters and similar games are played. Besides, those who give games like this a great narrative credit may never had played any other game than those. Jus’ sayin’…

-.-.-.-.-

Well, thank you very much for the patience on my top six. As you notice, I only mentioned three, but to avoid this post to be too long, I will cut this into two parts. Next post comes right after this one. Remember, feel free to comment, but I have still three more points to discuss. Fare well then!

After the quick foray on succesful endings on the last two posts, we finally return to the issue in question that started the debate: why is the ending to Harry Potter so inadequate? Remember that we talked about the conclusion of a story taking two main ways: the closing of the cycle and, with it, the story and the open ending, with a great chance of creativity in this last case. Now it is time to contrast those endings and see how much of these you can see in that dreaded novel.

Part 3 – Finding an Ending

We will use both ways to analyze the ending, since any defender of the Potter series may say one or another of the following arguments (more or less):

It’s a good ending (it’s over)

It does not tell you everything, so you can imagine the rest (open ending)

I have heard a bit of both, although I personally think none of them really apply to explain what it was that really happened when J.K. Rowling faced the task to finish her epos. But let us first examine each argument.

It does not tell you everything

When talking about the Deadly Hallows, people told me that the open ending was on purpose, so the reader could be part of the story and imagine any possible outcome. I do definitely not agree with this. Even in Anne Rice’s and George Martin’s works, who do tie-ins into their next novels, there is some sort of conclusion. A cycle ends, giving way for new growth in the next volume. Let’s contrast this with Harry Potter: the last battle at Hogwarts is, to be sure, an end of the cycle. Many people die (off-screen), signaling the end of the conflict. Voldermoth’s story has a conclusion. After that you skip to a scenario around ten years later, at the rail station 9 3/4. the surviving characters have kids and they still bicker as if nothing had happened. This sudden cut-away leaves a bad taste in the mouth, something similar happening at the end of the first Star Wars trilogy: a huge party and then the credits. Although, to Lucas’ credit, at least we know that Anakin found peace (the original cycle), Han Solo keeps the chick and, in the remastered versions, we see some happy citizens of the galaxy enjoying a party and toppling old statues. In Rowling’s series we saw none of it.

Even Lovecraft had to explain the conclusions he gave his reader: if this or that person survived, even if it was for unknown reasons, what happened with the occultists, etc. In Harry Potter we have no further explanations. It is as if the deaths of the friends that helped Harry for years just disappeared from the memory, with no further trace. I always wanted to know how the surviving Weasley twin would cope with the death of what was essentially his other half. Instead we get silence.

I understand that Rowling is trying to apply a cyclical thought to the conflict between the wizards, but this cycle had met its end. Why not explain it? The answer may be simple: lazy, rushed writing. Well, at least not enough to live up to the expectations created after years and years of waiting.

It is a good ending

Here I have to return to The Lord of the Rings. While the book dedicates a whole part of the third part in explaining the consequences of the War of the Ring, in Harry Potter shows no real consequence to its own war, which resulted not only in a myriad of deaths, but also the infiltration of the wizardly institutions. For me this is a pretty big deal. Why not explain the consequences?

Second, if the Malfoys have proven for the second time that they were murderous and deceitful bastards, why do they still roam about the world? It was very easy to incarcerate Sirius Black, but what about Lucius? There is no real punishment behind the actions he carried out. No wonder there is a cycle of violence in the wizard-world: they let the bad guys free no matter how dreadful their crimes.

Rowling had already written six books. Why not finish the last with a full explanation? Some say she was pressured, but the movie came out many years later. Nay, I say, she was already tired of her own creation. All we see is a gap in between the conclusion and the last chapter. Harry even died and revived to be able to defeat the dark lord, and still all we got from his new state of being was that he married and got kids. What about his school? How did he finish it? Did he repeat the seventh year or did he get it just because everyone is happy? As you see, there are questions upon questions, and they had a need to be responded, even if partially. Why else would he fret in school for six years while defeating and evil overlord?

Conclusion

The simple omission of the details turns this ending into an inconsistent one; everyone is free to behave as they like, even though Harry Potter and his friends were continuously watched over, criticised and punished for every little thing. I do not understand now if, in the wizard-world, you have to be responsible for your actions or not. But the lack of consistent consequences just shows you that there is a huge missed opportunity. All the buildup of Rowling was smashed by simply not even punishing the Death-Eaters, at least not visibly.

I feel that the whole seventh volume of the series was just a desperate cry of the author to finish the whole issue she had gotten into; be it to satisfy the ensuing pressure because of her popularity, the films, or just because she was already bored with the whole concept. It is a sad way to end the books that carried me throughout most of my teenage years, leaving me with a sad bitter taste in my mouth. In any case, there could have been a better ending. It just needed one more chapter, not half a book!

I hope you enjoyed this first part of the series. I will bring up some more topics around the writing of fantasy, hopefully bringing some interesting details out in the books that have fascinated us with their magic. Up to then, fare well!

The last years have been interesting in the development in many technologies. I still remember the day we marveled over Pixar’s famous Toy Story, the first complete 3D animated movie with a lot of realism (considering it was a cartoon). It was impressing for sure, and although we did not know what consequences it would exactly have, we had the feeling we were going through a revolution.

And certainly we did. Not only movies changed: games did too. Mario turned into 3D, Resident Evil already appeared in that format… nothing was the same. We could say that the 90s, especially the end of them, were the times 2D died and 3D rose aggressively. To some extend it became a huge success; Mario got into an excellent run of games, Zelda was even greater once you could walk around in third person. On the other hand, we also saw the fails: how about Castlevania 64? Anyone remember most of the 3D Sonic games? Seems like some things were just born to stay as a sidescroller.

As you can see so far, I am quite neutral when it goes to speaking about the whole 3D phenomena. It has, after all, brought some great innovations. What bugs me though, is this need of converting everything into this format. Check for example the new Mario Bros. series that has come out for the Wii. It is in 2D again, and it still rocks. Also, Casltlevania has returned to his previous format, working just fine. What really is incredibly frustrating is how 3D has invaded the cinemas.

Just look at your local cinema and please tell me that most of the movies have not been in this strange 3D format at one point. Now, most people like it, but I just fail to understand why you are loving it. First off, for this gimmick to work, you need a pair of glasses. I myself wear some glasses, which already brings up the annoying difficulty of watching my favourite movies in the new dimension. Rest be assured, I have never again watched a movie with glasses.

Be honest to yourself too. What kind of new experience do you gain with this? I understand that it can be fun to have an explosion closing in on you, but the excitement it provokes is pretty much gone after you see the fourth detonation. Form there on, all that keeps you watching the picture is *gasp* the story, the effects and the occasional hot character. What is the difference now?

This whole 3D is just a successful marketing ploy to make you spend more money on a movie that is as enjoyable in three dimensions as it would be in the regular format. Honestly, I really don’t understand why people are loving it and why cinemas flood their theaters with this expensive experience. There were even times I could not watch a movie I wanted to see because it was just in 3D! They were forcing me to spend more money. Needless to say, I waited a week more to see it in a normal format later.

This one was already amazing in 2D! Why this?

Also comes this strange ideas of movies that were done in 2D to be forced into 3D… just to sell more. Why is that even necessary? At least in the third dimension pictures they try to make some effects pop out,s o you can enjoy them a bit more with a good blade closing in to your eye. But, for example, the movie The Avengers never had such an effect… and still was ported to 3D. This is not only utterly useless, but another example of trying to get, for the same movie, even more money, without really adding anything special to the experience.

Why am I against the 3D? It is easy. It is a technology not yet correctly developed. Granted, we don’t need two colors now to watch the movie, but in general it still needs those annoying glasses. Even the new bazillion-dollar T.V.s require you to use them! Let’s face it, 3D has been sold to us by force. And the consumer prefers to watch a gimmick with no sense and even bordering on frustrating instead of expecting a bit more of reason. Demand creates this. But have you seen the Nintendo 3DS? It has been able to replicate a good effect without the need of extra stuff and you can turn it off in case you can not stand the visual trick (headaches, anyone?). This is what a good theatre should include: options for the same price.

We have still a way to go to enhance our movie going experience, but we should also not settle with the immediate solution. I would love to see a good 3D effect… without the need of some fraggin’ extra item to disturb my already hindered vision!

I think at this point of the year it would be a good idea to discuss the re-launch of the DC Universe. Let us first be honest. Although I do like Batman, that is about all the comics I read about Superheroes. Yes, I know a lot about some other series, but I was never a big time buyer; instead I always enjoyed my childhood hero: Batman.

So this little review/rant is just about the DC re-launch from number 1 from the perspective of that particular side. Second, even though I have been reading the comics for a few years now, I am, by no accounts, an expert here. What I expose here is just the view of a casual fan. To be honest, I think most fans are more like me. Although I pick up the comics from one series only, I have not followed all the stories and all the happenings neither in the DC Universe, nor in the Marvel Universe. I just enjoy what I have at my hand. I hope that I least I can share a bit about this issue, though, as a casual reader.

A year ago, I was checking up on my comics again when I heard of the idea that DC would erase the numbers on their comics and re-start them all as #1s. This made my brow raise, so I decided to follow-up on it a bit. The idea was not bad: there would be a few changes to the stories and the numbers were just reset to eliminate the harrowing feeling that you had lost years worth of knowledge. It was not a way to kill everything and begin from point zero.

The changes, back then, seemed pretty exciting, and I was ready to accept them. I already was a bit weary of some details on the stories; a fresh was a great idea to clean the slate and give the comics a fresher look. But, did DC, in my eyes, succeed in this? My answer is no.

After a year of following my childhood hero, I have discovered, to my distaste, that the changes are merely aesthetic: the number of the comic and the look of the characters. Yes, they finally took away the ridiculous over-the-pants underwear of some heroes, and the suits look pretty neat. But what has not changed was the way the stories are told, the character’s personalities and the glaring issues with the world.

Batman, in a nutshell, is all the same: the new Robin, his son Damian, is still there, and each old Robin is in its place. The villains are the same (with the inclusion of three new, interesting ones, plus one that just died). The stories are as confusing as ever, and there was, in fact, no real change at all. I remember that one of the previews treated the Caped Crusader as an outlaw. The police, in a free sample I got in my comic store, was following him, shooting at him. It was as if they did not even know who Batman was. When I beheld the full comic, it was just because of a misunderstanding that they tried to get him. Bummer.

Also the Damian/Robin situation. I know the characters of comics have to grow and all, but I feel like the new sidekick doesn’t fit well into all this. I am always a bit weary to know that the companion to the Dark Knight is, in fact, his own son now. The conflicts portrayed up to now are not bad, I just don’t feel like they are part of the Batman mythos. Maybe I should really let it go, but it always struck me as queer. I was hoping they would eliminate Damian or something similar.

Also a bit unnerving is this whole family exploration thing. When Batman “died” during the Crisis event, a would-be father was revealed, now int he new series I heard about Alfred’s father being really knee-deep stuck in some conspirational mire, Dick Grayson’s parents on a similar situation and a would-be brother of Batman. Now, I know the comics always throw such bombs in the stories to keep them interesting, but if there is something untouchable, it’s the family life of Bruce Wayne. Their death propels Batman’s strive for justice. What would happen if they gave it a twist? I can’t imagine, but I know that this will not turn out to be good, because some things, despite what some say, are better left untouched. They are the essence of the characters, after all. And tradition.

In all the “new” Batman series is as great as before. The only thing that got me down was that the changes of the series were merely based on the looks, not on the content. Maybe a hardcore fan may correct me on that, but as a casual reader, the stories still follow exactly the same line as before. I just felt that DC did that re-launch to draw in more public, that’s all. But they could have left the old numbers (ranging up to almost 900) and it would have been the same.

But do not let this make you desist on keep on reading or not to event try to read the comics. I think the stories are still developing good and there is still a lot of drama to discover and experience. I can’t wait to see the Joker’s new face! I just think that the whole thing was just a bust to get attention.

Everyone knows that classical story by L. Frank Baum, The Wizard if Oz. If you have not read the books, you already have seen the 1939 movie, a classic. The myth of the far away world of Oz has settled in our memory, so much that it produced an interesting animation series and, a recent discovery, a book. A friend of mine gave me a few days ago a book with a cover very similar to what you would expect to see on what you would imagine is Sex and the Emerald City. I was first doubtful to read it, since I am not a big fan of those kind of novels. After reading it, I must say I had the wrong impression (don’t judge a book by its cover, anyone?).

The story of Wicked by Gregory Maguire, albeit a very simple idea, is interestingly executed. We now follow the life of the Wicked Witch of the West, the terrible nemesis to Dorothy and her friends (with the worst weakness ever. Seriously? Water?). Here we witness her birth and her life in college, as well as some choices she makes in her life to oppose the Wizard of Oz.

Now, the story in this novel is a bit twisted from what we are used to, which gives the whole story a very interesting point of view. Upon the arrival of the wizard and him assuming the power, the first thing that will happen is that he will start suppressing the subjects around Emerald City, provoking an ambience full of tension. Elphie (the witch) is thus drawn into a conflict in which she opposes the campaigns against the Animals (talking and thinking animals, the difference is in the capital letter), making her be part of an undercover terrorist organization. I will not spoil much, since I definitely recommend reading it, but in the end all turns against her and she turns into the villain of the story in the end.

Gregory Maguire’s re-imagination of the world of Oz is a bitter retelling of a person that, despite its “genetic” faults and being different, can not stop society as it turns, nor change its course. Elphie is a typical person that longs for understanding and for a normal life, but the events go, despite her freedom to choose, beyond her, making her thereby the evil person. Although at the end I felt it a bit forced when she sent all her cohorts to attack Dorothy, at least in the execution of the scene, I felt that the story had a bitter ending, even unsatisfactory. It will leave you asking “that’s it?”, but I think this was made on purpose. The efforts of the green nemesis will be in vain, and the novel will not hesitate on this, nor redeem anything. In other words, be prepared to feel a disappointment, but in a good way.

I hope this novel will leave you thinking on how we paint our images of people in the past and on how much sometimes it is too hard to fight against a society that has a set of rules which we do not agree with… and we can never fight.

This book is a definite recommendation from my part, even though it may not be the best. I am looking forward to read the other two parts of the series. I’ll go and poke my friend to see if she gives me the sequel!!! See you next week!

I am writing this article just after seeing The Dark Knight Rises (on Saturday), a movie which fascinated me. So yes, this a positive review on it. Usually, when I comment on something I just saw on the cinema, I always say something like: “I liked this movie, but…”. I am a very harsh critic when it comes to the moving pictures, and not few have taken ill to my comments. Usually that’s why many people think I am a negative person. In the meanwhile I refuse to comment to that. Let me just say what I think about The Dark Knight Rises: I love it, but…

So, in order to be able to give my two cents, I will move to highlight some points about the movie. The underline is still, that everyone (or at least almost) should see it. It may be not as grand as the previous part of the series, but I felt really no lack of epicness. That being said let me just say that I also have not read any critic on the movie yet, since I always try not to tarnish my few forays into the cinemas with opinions… it always turns out I expect too much or too less of something. By the way, it is also a late review, but maybe I can bring something new to think about!

So, let’s get going:

Excellent story! Period. I was at the edge of my seat the whole movie, and I could not stop staring at the screen. There were even times I wanted to stand up and just hooray at the heroes (and villains). Definitely worth the experience.

Hathaway. Although Catwoman was excellently portrayed, I am not quite a fan of the casting. It is Definitely much better than Halle Berry. But somehow there were moments I could not imagine she was Selina Kyle. Anyway, this is more a personal perk, so don’t pay too much attention to this opinion!

The inclusion of Bane’s signature move. Now, you may wonder what I mean with this, but for this you most go back a few years in the comic book history. I don’t remember the exact year, but there was a mayor event after Superman’s death and revival in which Bane actually defeated Batman… by breaking his back (obviously Bruce got better after a few months). The inclusion of this and how they put it together with the story was just brilliant. I liked the idea of the crippled millionaire who had to literally crawl out of his hole to be able to assume his role as a protector. Yes, the title predicted exactly what you would see. And it did this in a glorious manner. Believe me, just because of that I finally made my mind and I will buy the trilogy. Mind you that I never buy movies!

Uh, Batman, are you there? My biggest concern may be the fact that sometimes I had this uneasy feeling that this story could have been written under another name. In other words, was the inclusion of the Batman cast and its hero really necessary? I felt sometimes that I could have watched the movie with another set of characters and it would have been as great. I don’t exactly know how to feel about this. The whole story arc took and interesting turn with the third movie, but it felt a but not-batmanish, if you catch my drift. In other words, this whole revolution idea felt a bit odd to me. Or maybe I am just being stubborn and I am shying on how the director took a look into the world of the Caped Crusader, since it really broke a few molds. Innovation is not always a bad thing, and we saw it in Burton’s vision of Gotham City.

The obligatory sequel! Now, this one is really something I am concerned about. To be honest, the whole trilogy is great. Maybe the first movie was not as interesting as I would have liked, but the other two were great. In fact, they are so grand that I fear that a small mistake in the next movie could crash the whole effort Nolan has put into the creation of this masterpieces. We already have seen this sad turn of events in the same franchise: Batman Forever anyone? Now that we know that there is a Robin involved and that Batman is officially dead to every one in Gotham City, but will return, the whole series of movies is at that delicate point of having too many sequels and with this, that it will come to a crash because of some ideas for the story that may go wrong. If there is really a necessity of a sequel, then let us just hope that they put as much effort in that movie as in the present one. I would not mind to find finally a serious Robin sidekick in a Batman movie! Please Nolan????

Well then, I am off to catch up on some reviews I wanted to take a look at. In any case, I’ll see you next week, or maybe a bit earlier!

One of the elements that marked my youth was this excellent game called Dungeons & Dragons, a fantasy game in which all you did was to imagine a situation in a distant world and acted accordingly as a mighty warrior or powerful sorcerer. First published in 1974, I never got to see that first edition and its revisions. What I got to play, though, was from the AD&D rules on. This article will focus on some random thoughts on how each edition of the books was perceived by me through time and how it influenced me in my life. In the end I will come to the following conclusion: I love 3.5, and always will, since I think this was the easiest set of rules and, at the same time, the most complete ones, that permitted a plethora of characters that oftentimes broke molds of what a true “fighter”, “wizard”, rouge” or “cleric” was.

AD&D

Also known as 2.5, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was the first Pen-and-Paper Roleplaying Game that I played. I barely had read The Hobbit and the ever classic The Lord of the Ring when I was attracted to that game; a few of my classmates played it with certain regularity. Although they never invited me to play (I was not precisely popular), I managed to get a few copies of the book and started my own group. The game was glorious.

Creating characters was precisely what I needed back them. It was the point my imagination flew the highest. Still, although I was having a glorious time, by the gods, this game was way too difficult and too restrictive. I can safely assure that most gamers had the house rule that all races could access their classes until level 20, since the book had strange restrictions. For example, dwarves could create clerics, but they could not go beyond level 16 (I think, I don’t quite remember anymore), which really left me and my friends wondering about that. So we decided not to follow those limits.

By the way, combat could be a pain too. THACO was the code name, a short way to say “to hit armor class zero”. It needed some strange calculations, not particularly hard, but needlessly complicated. Most people I introduced to AD&D failed to understand that part and often had to trust me when entering into combat or making a character.

The game was hard to get used to, but quite fun. And it was the first D&D I played.

3rd Edition

Maybe one of my greatest moments in my life and one of the great lessons, I followed the development as closely as possible to this one. Every Dragon magazine was a must buy to see how it would develop. My first impression: this is sooooo going to fail. Why change the rules that are already good? Granted, I thought eliminating THACO would be a great idea, even eliminating those strange racial-class limits. But why change it and not just do an errata?

Was I really that ignorant? Up to now it is my favorite edition, especially the 3.5 version, in which they corrected some mistakes and made a really good Ranger. On Donnars red beard, if AD&D had infinite possibilities, then Third Edition had even double so. The characters were incredibly varied. It is true that character creation could take almost half a good gaming night, but once you finished, you had statistics for the most unique characters to be found on any D&D game… or just the same as always if you preferred to go all “powerhouse” on your elven wizard.

Whatever the case the new edition had included so many new exciting game mechanics: Prestige Classes, innumerable feats, varied skill points (in AD&D there were in reality no good skills apart of the fighting mechanics) and, not the least, easy multiclassing. It was really hard to repeat a character with so many possibilities, and sometimes we had the feeling that adventure would never end.

I really learned there that new was not bad. Just different. And to be honest, I still prefer 3rd over the weird AD&D. Not that the latter was bad. It is just a little more restrictive than I had imagined the first time I heard about the game. But then change came.

4th Edition

With such a marvel done with the 3rd Edition, what could go wrong on the next one? To be honest, everything. I loved the idea of the inclusion of new character classes like the Thiefling and that lizard thingy, which I personally love as an option. The classes were not bad either. I mean, who would not love to get a Warlock to burn their enemies into cinder? But then came the feats and abilities… *facepalm*

Definitely a big mistake. Now all abilities were set in a copy and cut -able format so you could always remember your abilities (good idea!) but were limited to your own class. Multiclassing got cryptic. But then came the biggest two mistakes that I got to hate so much. The first one was the skills. From now on you chose your set of skills and they leveled with you. That’s it. No variation of skill points, no specialization, just everything the same. Boring and not a good way to create an excellent bard.

The second big mistake was the two weapon fighting. Only a Ranger could do that now. And this only by getting a special power. Are they kidding me? How hard can two weapon fighting be? No, honestly. As a weapon historian myself I just can shake my head in disbelief. Just to start with, the shield is not only for protection, it is also a second weapon. I have also seen so many people use two weapons with devastating effectiveness. Why in the name of Hella’s rotten half was it now possible only for the Ranger to use two weapons? It was almost as if it was his special ability. This was so ridiculous to me, since I loved fighters too, but also liked the idea of wielding a sword and a dagger. It was so easy in 3rd Edition, and it even had some penalties to balance it out in the game.

This was maybe the thing that finally made me forget about 4th Edition. I tried to play it, but the characters were so average and almost the same that I really lost interest after a few sessions. It was the only time I wrote Dragon magazine, to ask if there was no other way to use two-weapon fighting. Their answer: no.

This version of D&D felt more like an online game (MMORPG). Now, don’t get me wrong, I love MMOs, but if I wanted to play one with my friends, I would have just gone into World of Warcraft and that’s it. This feeling of freedom was gone, even with the new options, and the game was not as infinite as before. In all honesty, I think this was the worst version yet.

Ending this…

Now, I have to accept I have not touched a 4th Edition book in over two years. Also, I have never checked if there was a 5th Edition in the making. But to be honest, I already found my perfect game with so many memories. The AD&D version was the first one to introduce me into real games and fantasy, but the 3rd Edition really managed to get me hooked up and turn me into this huge nerd that enjoys this hobby so much. I am really disappointed when it goes to how gaming has been treated the last years, especially roleplaying. Although, granted, the mechanics are easier and it is quicker to start a game, I feel that we have lost the excitement of choice. And that’s why I will always have 3rd Edition in my heart, no matter what may happen in the future of roleplaying.

May they smile upon your way!

Posts navigation

Welcome to a blog of gaming, movies, books and some history. In here I explore the stories that have carried us over decades, yes, even centuries, to what defines us today. I hope you enjoy it and comment, I am always open to respond!
This blog is updated whenever possible, once a week.